You guys are getting to be too much to handle. I don't mind clashes of logic, but having to deal with three of you is getting to be too much. But since I'm going to ignore one of them anyway, that leaves only two. A little bit easier to handle.

Quote:

Besides your objections against the origin of life - which I think are illogical, see my previous post



It seems obvious you want to drop this subject. Just let me point out one thing. I'm not the one who even said this was a failed experiment in the first place. Scientists, even the one who performed it, said it was a failure. I just took the conclusion to the next logical step.

Quote:

As far as I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - you accept that a species can change by modifying or loosing information of their DNA - which you call 'devolution'. However you do not accept the possibility of adding new information to the DNA that gives a species, for instance, a new organ - that would be a 'good mutation'.



Well...let me try and reword it and see if that gets us closer to the same page. I'm saying that within a species there is natural genetic variance. I'm assuming you're still with me on this point, because this is a well known genetic fact (or at least I've heard it to be, and not from creationists but from probably evolutionist geneticists (it was on an evolution-based website (if a website can be said to be based off evolution))). What I'm saying is that, the variety (and similarity) of some species, for instance the finches, wasn't brought about by these birds gaining any new traits. Instead, what I'm saying is the more obvious conclusion is that at one point all of these genetic traits were more generalized within a smaller number of species, maybe within even only one species. However, because even on an island there are different requirements for surviving, certain genes of this species seperated and formed their own species, albeit with less genetic variance.

My evidence for this was, for one, certain physical or behavioral characteristics carried over between species even if not much else was similar. Sure, this could be called common ancestry, but it could go either way. The other was that animals have been shown to lose genetic data when it is beneficial to them (a rare case where nature selects for a loss, hiding, or corruption of data because having the data is actually harmful in the first place). For instance, the fish with scars instead of eyes were able to grow their eyes back when a lens was implanted in early life from the same species outside the cave that still had the eyes.

This shows that evolution does happen. No one is arguing that. The fish had to change to lose the eyes, and change is evolution. However, the fish did NOT gain the eyes. And this is an important distinction. The mutation of losing the eyes was good, in that it kept the fish from dying from infection when it bumped up against the walls. But not 'good' in the sense that it gained anything new. I understand I'm not being clear on what constitutes a good mutation and a 'good' mutation. However, would you not agree that this distinction is important to the future of evolution, where for instance this fish is required to slowly gain, for instance, legs? My point is that we do see evolutionary 'shifts' in animals, but only in the sense that they are flexible enough to survive on earth, but are restricted by the bounds of the original data. This isn't change enough to grow new organs like legs and become new animals.

Quote:

But denying this possibility is just an opinion - obviously biologists have a contrary opinion.



Fair enough, but geneticists do not (maybe it could be said that geneticists are just more specialized biologists). A lot of biology is steeped in evolution, so biologists at this point are only looking for more proof of materialist evolution (forgive my use of the word materialist, I simply don't know any other way to put it, and there is an important distinction). Its ok, even from my creationist viewpoint, that biologists are only trying to find evidence of materialist evolution. As I've said, I'm all for anything that leads to a better understand of life. However, when they find evidence that contradicts their viewpoint, it should be presented FAIRLY to the public, not in a manner that misleads the layman.

However, geneticists have been trying for a LONG time to find some working mechanism for a change in kinds of animals. They haven't found it. And they've also found that there is something stopping these 'positive' or 'new' mutations from occuring. My hypothesis was that this is because the original genetics are in place and they are the standard upon which mutations find themselves unable to compete with. Which is why we don't see mutations that change what an animal essentially is to begin with except by confusing or hiding or completely losing that data altogether. Which is expressed in the creature through mutations that usually lead to a general loss of fitness.

If mutations are so good for creatures to become something else, why do cells have natural defense mechanisms (albeit, defenses that don't work 100%) to reverse or prevent these mutations? I'm seriously just asking, I'm not really sure myself. I'd like to say that these mechanisms show mutations are always bad, but I can't draw that conclusion at this time.


Your equation was great and all, but where are you getting these numbers from? edit: I shouldn't say that, because it makes me sound ignorant. What I mean is that your idea of what constitutes the chances is highly askew. For instance, if I say a positive mutation might occur once every ten mutationts (for instance), and we cause 400+ mutations in one species alone and not one of them is positive then I might have to re-evaluate my equation.

Furthermore, you're not adding in all of the variables. Your equation might work if all of the nucleotides were just sitting in a big pool, but they're organized into acids and so on up the chain, and so you have to take into account what mutations can effect, and how much of these groupings they can affect at once.

I'm not going to blather on about mutations, I'd rather use some helpful examples.

sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid.

So, if the amino acids spell out sentences (genes), it could be said (based on the evidence) that all of these words have to make some kind of metaphorical 'grammatical' sense or it affects the gene. You're talking about the difference between order and disorder. Changing an amino acid causes disorder, because we're not dealing simply with nucleotides, we're dealing with a pre-existing order of sentences and this order goes up and up. I'm simply saying that you have to look at the big picture to understand why these mutations can't physically (as in physics) be good. Because in turn these genes lead to proteins, and thousands of these proteins must be working correctly at the same time in order for the cell to function properly. So on the level of nucleotides, yeah we can create just about anything, but when you order enough 'just about anythings' into a an arrangement that makes sense, and then add a 'just about anything' in there that wasn't meant to fit into the larger picture it causes a conflict with the original genetic data.

So my assumption of the probibility of a mutation that causes a gaining of efficiency in a function or physical trait (I'm assuming that these cells weren't originally photo sensitive, and that they never contained this data in the first place so it wasn't hidden or corrupted) is zero. Because you have to affect more than just nucleotides, or I should say you have to affect nucleotides on a large scale (all at once nonetheless) to get that data to appear in the first place. This mechanism has yet to be discovered.

My conclusion then is that mutations simply don't do enough work even to cause a change such as this. This is why a mutation affecting red blood cells (sickle cell anemia) doesn't completely change what the red blood cells are. It just causes a crippling of the original purpose of the red cells. If mutations worked on a large enough scale to do this, then the effect on red blood cells would simply be more widespread (or the effect on anything by mutations). Technically, they're still red blood cells just with a handicap.

Sure, mutations can effect an entire wing, but this can happen on a small scale by corrupting the data that causes these wings to grow at all. It doesn't have to completely manipulate the entire data of the wing.

So mutations have two hurdles to cross (and I know these two hurdles exist because they were evidenced in the fly experiment and because we both know something about genetics).

1). They don't work on a large enough scale to do enough 'random mixing' to make it even statistically possible for a mutation to occur. Even when mutations are crammed together in a short period of time (fruit flies) they still work on too small of a scale to affect enough genetics to produce these new organs we're always hearing about, but never see.

I understand why you think animals can gain new data, especially if snakes have legs (normally I would just call these lizards) but assumptions based on fossils are no match for the observable truth. You can cook up any equation you want, but the the observable truth never lies.

2). They conflict with the original genetic material, which causes negative effects in the creature.

I don't care who you are, you don't want sickle cell anemia. And if the only way evolution can change a creature (even for the better) is by causing bad things to happen to that creature, then this still fits within the creationist model of evolution because no matter how many times you pile bad things on to a creature, it'll never stop being that creature.

At this point, I have to pass the corn picture to get down to Marco's post. Its been a while since anything's gotten me to giggle like a school girl, like that.

Quote:

If you define it as difference in life span or procreation rate of the new organism compared to its predecessor then you have a usable biological definition.



Not necessarily. We can compare efficiency, fitness, etc. It takes into account a lot of different things. For a new mutation to avoid being 'bad' it doesn't have to not be less efficient, or cause less fitness, etc. Those things help, but it has to create something that wasn't there. I should say the argument isn't about whether or not mutations can cause good or bad things to happen, but whether or not this comes at a price to the original genetic code. Ok, you don't die of malaria, but you had to cripple your red blood cells in the process. This didn't create any new data, so how does that show that a human can become a dragon?

Of course, I should explain that too. You can have 'new' data in the form of a new amino acid, or shorter or longer genes (more or less amino acids), but because we are already dealing with a well ordered creature, these changes can't lead to anything that is better relative to what already existed. Which is why sickle cell anemia caused a 'new' amino acid to appear on a gene, but still caused something to become 'out of order'. The red blood cells don't do their job as well, wouldn't you agree? They die faster, they aren't pliable enough to squeeze through vessels. This may not always kill the victim, but it certainly doesn't help.

I just....I get what you guys are saying about mutations, and I think half of it has to do with miscommunication mostly on my part, but the other half is perspective. We're not really disagreeing about what can happen, but about what the outcome is here and exactly why these outcomes are reached.

Quote:

Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria.



This is what I mean by miscommunication. I need to find a different way to say this. Nucleotides are organized into amino acids. These amino acids are further organized into genes. These genes then produce proteins. You can have a mutation help you out, that's not what we disagree on. That's why I brought up the example of the fish in the first place. What we disagree on is the process by which the mutation becomes helpful in the first place. If I lived in a cave all my life and never had eyes and then left the cave. Its one thing to say that I could grow new eyes and that's a positive mutation, but its a positive mutation into something new. If on the other hand I go into this cave and lose my eyes, that's also a positive mutation. Who, in their right mind, would want to die from an eye infection? However, the process by which both of these adaptations took place is very distinct and very important in finding out if not only is creationist evolution true, but whether or not materialist evolution is true.

In the latter example, either the data for the eyes had to be hidden, outright lost, or unable to be useful because the device that caused them to grow in the first place got turned 'off.' These are what I mean by bad mutations. They may lead to good outcomes, but they lead to a general breakdown of the overall structure of DNA. Because, if you combine enough of these mutations, eventually the animal will become completely unfit to live on earth. Would you disagree with that?

In the first example, we randomly remixed our amino acids to gain eyes (assuming for a moment that mutations worked on a larger scale than they do). However, this kind of mutation could be considered 'good' because it not only lead to data that never existed before, but it lead to data that never existed before that lead to a brand spanking new creature. There may be a me that exists without those eyes back in the cave, but I'm still a new creature because I grew eyes without the aid of previous genetic material.

Which example occurs in nature? Yes, good and bad mutations can be said to occur, but like I said my argument isn't against evolution. I believe mutations cause change, and that this change can be said to be good (its all part of evolution). But good isn't good enough. It has to lead to data that never existed, not just work on the original data by crippling or reducing this data. Otherwise you still have a long way to go in showing how materialist evolution is possible.

This is the kind of bait and switch tactic is used on the public. We're shown this change, and that it can lead to good things, but we're not shown the basis of this change and how it can't lead one creature to become another and never has before.

I need a new hobby. Its just, I think we're very close to meeting each other on this whole idea of evolution. Maybe I'm wrong and you guys have something else up your sleeve. Who knows? At least I know things'll be interesting.

Quote:

Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria. If sickle cell anemia suddenly appeared in a population and remained in the genepool even though there were no deaths from malaria then you would even have evidence against evolution. But that's not the case.



And besides, in this example all you've shown is how even bad mutations (reduction of genetics) can be used to protect our species. So on the other side of this mutation we still have humans, its just that sickle cell anemia managed to protect our DNA. My point is that its misleading to call these types of mutation 'evolution.' They are evolution, but they're going to lead people to believe that this proves some primitive ape eventually became man. Which is why I always make it a point to make a distinction between what level of evolution I'm talking about here.

Quote:

I don't follow you. 80 million compared to 3000 million is rather a low. What are you trying to say?



I'm saying that in ratio form it sounds low, but the difference is pretty big on a smaller level.

That and this 'junk' dna has been found to have a purpose before. It may not be expressible, but it has to do with mitosis and passing of genetic information.

Sure, there is real junk DNA that does absolutely nothing (that we know of so far), but some of it is required in the process of replicating our current DNA

edit: possibly all of it actually in which case that would explain why the 'junk' dna of monkey and man is so similar. They have similar DNA because they look the same, and they have similar junk DNA because their expressible DNA is so similar and it indirectly requires the use of this junk DNA.

Quote:

Back to junk DNA: if there are identical base sequences in organism A and B that can not be transcribed into proteins, thus are meaningless to the organism



Introns are useless to the creature? Mutations show they aren't, since mutations on the intron cause problems with imprinting. I'll assume you know what imprinting is in this context? I don't want to patronise you. Anyway, this can result in different diseases and cancer.

The very idea of junk DNA in the first place is kind of a problem. You say junk DNA is junk because at our current understanding we don't know what this junk DNA is yet (or what it does). To say that its inability to create protein proves its uselessness is kind of a loaded argument. I can't prove you wrong because we don't know 100% of everything about genetics. Just like introns were first thought to be 'vestigial', and like some organs were first thought to be vestigial: things change.

"While many scientists assume much of this sequence is probably an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some or all of it may function in ways that are not currently understood. In fact, recent studies have suggested functions for certain portions of what has been called junk DNA. -- The "junk" label is therefore recognized as something of a misnomer, and many would prefer the more neutral term "noncoding DNA"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

I purposely left out a phrase about evolution from that quote. Because I'm brainwashing you. Actually this is the phrase if you want to read it, I just didn't think it was entirely relevant.

"Moreover, the conservation of some "junk" DNA over millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function."

So I think it would be fair not to jump to conclusions just yet. We have a lot to learn. We includes me of course because I'm learning as this discussion goes along too.

Quote:

That's probably a road to disaster We do not have the complete genome for chimpanzees but we do have the genome for parts of it and can compare the nucleotides to that of humans divide the number of variations by the genome length and you have the percentage of difference. And since this is science you (or any creationist in a biochem lab) could disprove it by showing that there are more variations then have been observed. Until then it's wishful thinking.



Do I still need to respond to this?



I have to say you guys (I know you won't see it this way entirely) but you guys are a God send. I'm the type of person who can't just believe something, I have to know why I believe something and I have to know and understand this proof. Some call it overanalytical, and that may be true, but frankly I'm grateful for it. Anyway, the point is that I've never had as much faith in creationism as I have had since these discussions with you guys. Facts on the internet are one thing, but putting my faith to the test against you guys has been a great experience. You've tempered my thinking and beliefs in a way that nothing else ever could and I'm grateful for that.

Thanks. I hope I've been a worthy opponent thus far.

Now, its off to my friend's house until I have to go to sleep.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/06/06 04:50.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."